[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN UPDATE ON DOD'S STRUGGLING
BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 24, 2026
__________
Serial No. 119-58
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-790 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Robert Garcia, California, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Pat Fallon, Texas Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Byron Donalds, Florida Greg Casar, Texas
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Jasmine Crockett, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Emily Randall, Washington
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Wesley Bell, Missouri
Nick Langworthy, New York Lateefah Simon, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Dave Min, California
Eli Crane, Arizona Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Brian Jack, Georgia Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
John McGuire, Virginia James R. Walkinshaw, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
Vacancy
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Ryan Giachetti, Chief Counsel
Lisa Piraneo, Senior Professional Staff Member
Jenn Kamara, Director of Strategic Initiatives
Sam Meunier, Professional Staff Member
Bill Womack, Senior Advisor
Mallory Cogar, Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Robert Edmonson, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Government Operations
Pete Sessions, Texas, Chairman
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Kweisi Mfume, Maryland, Ranking
Gary Palmer, Alabama Member
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Eleanor Holmes, Norton District of
Brian Jack, Georgia Columbia
Brandon Gill, Texas Maxwell Frost, Florida
Emily Randall, Washington
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Pete Sessions, U.S. Representative, Chairman................ 1
Hon. Kweisi Mfume, U.S. Representative, Ranking Member........... 3
WITNESSES
The Honorable Justin Overbaugh, Deputy Under Secretary of War for
Intelligence and Security, Acting Director, Defense
Counterintelligence and Security Agency, U.S. Department of War
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Ms. Alissa Czyz, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management,
U.S. Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement................................................... 9
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
* Questions for the Record: Ms. Alissa Czyz; submitted by
Chairman Pete Sessions and Rep. Kweisi Mfume.
* Questions for the Record: Hon. Justin P. Overbaugh; submitted
by Chairman Pete Sessions and Rep. Kweisi Mfume.
These documents were submitted after the hearing, and may be
available upon request.
AN UPDATE ON DOD'S STRUGGLING
BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2026
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on Government Operations
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Pete Sessions
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Sessions, Foxx, Palmer, Burchett,
and Mfume.
Also present: Representative Walkinshaw.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETE SESSIONS
REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS
Mr. Sessions. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Government
Operations will come to order, and I would like to welcome
everybody to this important hearing.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time. And I recognize myself for the purpose of making an
opening statement.
We welcome today's hearing on the modernization of the
Federal Government's background investigations and security
clearance process, in particular, the Department of Defense's
National Background Investigative Services system, also known
as NBIS. If the topic of today's discussion sounds familiar, it
should. As a matter of fact, we are getting to know each other
rather well in this room.
This Subcommittee first examined issues related to this
back in June 2024 when Congress raised serious concerns about
persistent failures in personnel vetting. Unfortunately, the
need for continued oversight has only grown more urgent. And I
must say that it is a welcome--seemingly welcome thing for the
Administration, GAO to want to tackle this issue. But it also
leads us to today's hearing.
Unfortunately, the need for this continued oversight has
grown more urgent, and as I said, both--all three sides are
willing to come together for this discussion. I want to thank
the gentleman, Mr. Mfume, for his insistence that we continue
down this pathway.
During our initial hearing, we heard from the gentlewoman,
Ms. Czyz, the same GAO witness that we will hear from today.
GAO has been tracking problems with our Nation's Federal
personnel vetting process since as far back as 2005. We also
heard from then Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency
(DCSA) Director David Cattler who, in this same hearing room,
was brand new to the job, at the same time to speak about the
program's significant management and oversight shortcomings,
poor scheduling, poor cost planning, and dozens of
cybersecurity risks, which many of them have become true.
At the time, our witnesses offered recommendations and
commitments to correct action. Today, our focus remains
squarely on NBIS and whether the program is on track to support
the Administration's stated goals of accelerating background
investigations and security clearances.
Specifically, we want to know whether this system is
progressing as discussed, what additional steps may be
necessary to deliver a modern, reliable personnel vetting
platform that is long overdue that exists in law.
NBIS was envisioned as a one-stop shop for all faces of
Federal personnel vetting by providing modern tools for
investigators. Once again, not a mission being met.
It has become especially critical after the 2015 Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) data breach in which the personnel
data and sensitive information of over 21 million current,
former, and prospective Federal employees and their families
were exposed. Yet today, NBIS has deployed only limited
capacities and capabilities, and the program is now more than
eight years behind schedule, with completion delayed from 2019
to 2028. This has cost the American taxpayer hundreds of
millions of dollars and has wasted valuable government
resources.
I will note, before I turn the page, it would be simple to
blame the people who are here today, and I do not intend to do
that. I intend to work with the people who are here and to move
forward. But we are going to take seriously what is done today
with the need to correct that action.
In addition, it has called into question the safety and
reliability of all aspects of the Federal personnel vetting
system. It has also showed the broader governmentwide
initiative to reform personnel vetting policies and processes
known as, in the law, Trusted Workforce 2.0, zero. The Federal
workforce and the government's industrial partners deserve
better. That was why we have held so many hearings, and that is
why the law was made. Without these vetting reforms in place or
the promised information technology like NBIS that serve as
their backbone, security clearance providers and recipients
lack advanced tools and the assurance that their personnel
information is guarded and safe.
Agencies and contractors are left struggling with the same
persistent challenges: slow and delayed onboarding, delaying
their access to facilities, and inefficiencies that undermine
mission readiness that people, like Mr. Mfume and the
Administration, need to make sure that they have the assured
people in place.
As was clear from our last hearing, concerns about NBIS are
shared by Members of Congress on both aisles. This is not a
partisan issue. This is a national security issue. We must
continue to work together to ensure the security, efficiency,
and accountability of these personnel vetting systems and
processes, which play an increasingly vital role in
safeguarding our national interests comes to fruition.
I am hopeful that our witnesses who have taken place--who
have provided this Subcommittee with data and information over
the last few weeks recognize that the progress that has been
made over the last 18 months must continue. Last September,
after Director Cattler's retirement from DCSA, Ranking Member
Mfume wrote the DOD to express our concerns about this
leadership--strike that--Department of War, DOW. We encourage
swift action to put a new director in place, especially given
the ongoing problems that NBIS has and the need to effectively
place leadership in that role. We will probably hear today some
of the followup to that. But it comes with a lot of uncertainty
and a lot of frailties attached to it. We are still going to
have the hearing, and while I have no doubt that this
Administration will find another leader with necessary
commitment, passion, and qualifications to guide this full and
successful implementation, I remain deeply concerned.
Now, over seven months since Mr. Cattler announced his
retirement, DCSA remains without a permanent director, and part
of the discussion today will be to put on record that needed
desire for this Administration to accomplish this. I am
confident that my friend and colleague, Mr. Mfume, not only
shares my concern but I want to thank him for his
professionalism in addressing these issues.
Today, I look forward to hearing more about the progress,
bringing a new director on, as well as status of the National
Background Investigation Service program because this hearing
will further develop because GAO is here. Lots of other ideas
that they have got, that are challenges that must be met. I
look forward to hearing how we continue to use this
relationship that we share with the Administration, GAO.
And I would now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Mfume, for
his opening statement. The gentleman is recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER KWEISI MFUME
REPRESENTATIVE FROM MARYLAND
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Chairman Sessions.
And good morning to all of our witnesses.
I want to thank you, Mr. Sessions, for your partnership on
this issue and a lot of other issues that have come before this
Committee that really require a bipartisan approach. You have
been very clear in that regard, and it has been clear, I think,
also, to the full Committee and to others who have watched us
over the last couple of years.
Again, my thanks to the witnesses. When it comes to
national security, I think we all can agree that partisanship
stops at the water's edge. At least that is what I was taught
long ago. And it is important to underscore that because our
goal is straightforward: deliver a background check system that
keeps United States of America safe, that also gets qualified
people to work without delay, and continuously verifies that
they deserve and have earned our trust.
America, in my opinion, cannot hope to maintain our
technological advantage in the national security space if we
make the best engineers, scientists, linguists, analysts, and
others spend months if not years, sometimes, in limbo before
they can serve. And if we cannot clear people, we cannot
complete our missions. It is very, very simple.
The National Background Investigation Services, or NBIS
program, was launched, as we all know, to replace the outdated,
cumbersome legacy systems and to reduce backlogs and to harden
cybersecurity. However, successful implementation is still far
from a reality, and the current plan is for technical
capabilities in Fiscal Year 2027, full implementation in 2028,
and continued rigorous oversight, if necessary, to get us
across the finish line.
Now, since 2017, the government has spent about $2.4
billion on NBIS and legacy sustainment to keep outdated systems
up and running. That is an awful lot of money. $2.4 billion.
And the Department projects that about another $2.2 billion is
needed to finish the job. So, we are far off the mark of where
we had hoped to be. It is an enormous amount of money for the
government to spend on anything and have so very, very little
to show for it.
I understand that this project reached a state of disarray
and that after eight years of implementation, it had to return
to a planning phase to restructure the entire acquisition
strategy. This has left contractors in my district, and
districts all across the country, stuck with unclear
instructions and increased costs as they juggle various
systems.
In a region where roughly nine percent of jobs require a
security clearance, this really is not a small problem. It is a
huge, huge problem. It is a direct hit to workers and employers
in my city of Baltimore, and cities and towns and hamlets all
over this country, east to west. They depend on a functioning
clearance system to be able to do their jobs. And so, the
consequences do not stop with my district or the Chairman's
district. This is chaos. And in many respects, it has also come
with system outages that have stopped work on ground operations
and have caused things to come to a halt all over the globe.
These are more than just teachable moments, I hope. And
these issues have real mission impacts. So, here are a few
points I would like to hone in on and make sure are on the
record today.
First, we need an ongoing sense of vigilance on this
project, otherwise we will be right here a year from now
treading water. The DCSA team has provided quarterly plans and
gives a quarterly report to the industry. We need that in an
ongoing fashion. But I pledge that we here in Congress are not
going to get bored or look the other way, and we will not
settle for surface-level check-the-box compliance exercises.
And I think many of you who have followed the work of this
Committee know that that is the case. We are going to be and
continue to be very dogged about trying to bring about change
here, and we will make sure that the goals of NBIS
implementation are quantifiable and that they are very, very
clear. We will be monitoring progress toward each milestone,
and we will do that quarter by quarter.
Second, we must ensure that transparent costs on taxpayers
are just that, transparent. And so, taxpayers can trust NBIS
and trust also that the costs that they are paying, since it is
more than double than what was previously expected, will be
looked at and looked over.
I think all of us here agree, whether you are on this panel
or in the audience, that we owe it to the American people to
hold the Department accountable for overruns and prevent such
gross mismanagement moving forward both for the remaining steps
of NBIS implementation and for future projects.
Finally, I expect that real results from real people will
be coming soon. We need to know that we are seeing measurable
work and progress in bringing down the backlogs. We cannot just
trust that things are getting better, and we will not let up
until we get GAO's seal of approval and can see for ourselves
that the prospective employees are on the jobs as fast as
possible.
I am going to repeat what the Chairman just said, and that
is that the last DCSA director, David Cattler, announced his
retirement, as you heard, from his role in July of last year. I
cannot help but to wonder how we are still sitting here seven
months later and we still do not have even a nominee for DCSA.
Today, we have a Director of Defense, Intelligence and
Security Agency before us overseeing DCSA. That is just one of
the many duties, Mr. Overbaugh, that you have. We appreciate
your work. And we expect that you will keep NBIS on track as
acting director. But it seems like that is a full-time job, to
me, and so I ask for the following clear, on-the-record
commitments from the Department.
One, name a permanent DCSA director and the plan for
getting a qualified candidate into the position as soon as
possible.
Two, a full cost profile that ties dollars spent on NBIS to
the effectiveness of personnel security reform.
And, three, a commitment to ongoing quarterly briefings
about NBIS' progress toward its stated milestones. And if any
of those milestones slip, I would expect, and I am sure the
Chairman would also, that the Department will notify this
Subcommittee in writing within five business days regarding the
cause, the impact, and what the recovery plan is.
People in this country expect stewardship of their money,
and they expect trust and trustworthy persons in and around
government to carry that out. And they expect the Department
and a trusted workforce onboarded without delay will become a
reality very, very soon. They expect transparency when things
go right and when they go wrong. That is the spirit of this
hearing. There will also be transparency in measuring the
progress or the lack thereof.
So, if we do our jobs here, all of us, those of us who have
sworn an oath and have the privilege of representing
congressional districts and those of you who are working for
the Agency or other agencies, we will turn plans into
demonstrable results and turn intent into real and lasting
impact. That is the spirit of this hearing today.
I want to thank, again, Chairman Sessions for being as
dogged as he is in making sure that as a team, we work together
to bring about real and lasting change, otherwise we have
really just failed our jobs and failed our mission.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
gentleman's comments. I know that the people who are witnesses
today and have been a part of this for quite some time, do
recognize that you and I are attempting, along with this
Subcommittee on a bipartisan basis, to move a decisionmaking
and authority. And I concur completely with your comments that
this hearing today will be the beginning of that, that will
increasingly--upbeat tempo will be required on both sides.
Without objection, I would allow and have Congressman
Walkinshaw of Virginia, a very kind gentleman, who has asked to
be waived onto the Subcommittee for the purpose of questioning
the witnesses at today's Subcommittee hearing, we welcome him
to this Subcommittee hearing.
I also, just to be nice and fair, because she is my dear
friend from the last couple hundred years, we welcome the
distinguished Chairman [sic] of the Rules Committee, also a
member of this Subcommittee, my dear friend, Virginia Foxx.
Virginia, welcome today. I am delighted that you are here.
Ms. Foxx. I am trying to be inconspicuous.
Mr. Sessions. Oh. Well, you did not make that, Virginia.
For those of you who know, I have told Virginia for the
last 20 years or so, every day, ``I love you, Virginia.'' And
Virginia, I love you, and thank you.
Ms. Foxx. I love you too.
Mr. Sessions. Yes.
I am pleased to welcome our witnesses for today. Mr. Justin
Overbaugh is currently serving as both the Acting Director of
the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, as well as
the Deputy Under Secretary for Defense for Intelligence and
Security. In this important role as Acting DCSA Director, he is
responsible for leading efforts to protect Americans' trusted
workforce, trusted workspaces, and classified information. And
he has a daytime job and a nighttime job, obviously, because
this, as Mr. Mfume noted, is a heavy lift, and we appreciate
him, his professionalism, in taking time to be with us today.
Then we also welcome Alissa Czyz who serves as the Director
in the Defense Capabilities and Management Team at GAO. In her
role at the Government Accounting Office [sic], she oversees
reviews on the personnel security clearance process, artificial
intelligence, intelligence infrastructure, and DOW's approach
to business transmissions, among other topics. And we have
found her testimony, professionalism, and reliability to not
only want to work with this Subcommittee but in a professional
attribute that is related to her agency. And we welcome her.
So, thank you very much. I look forward to--if I could have
both of you stand and raise your right hand for the purpose of
administering the oath to the witnesses.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses that stand
before us raise their right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Let the record reflect that both the witnesses answered in
the affirmative. Thank you very much. And you may take your
seat.
We are now going to move to recognizing the witnesses. And
we appreciate you being here. You are not new to this. You know
that we have got a yellow light--a green light, yellow light,
red light. I would ask, as I always do, for the gentleman to
understand that we would like for our witnesses to give us the
information that is necessary. And I am not going to stick to
necessarily a 5-minute rule if either side goes over. But we
are here today to get to the bottom of this, because I think
that this will be a hearing that whoever you hire will want to
know how serious this is and will want to know that it has been
vetted not only by GAO, but the importance to each of these
Members that are here. And so, we are not going to cut you off.
We want you to give full testimony, full hearing, full
articulation on the matter. And I am delighted that you are
here. The gentleman, Mr. Overbaugh, is now recognized.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE JUSTIN OVERBAUGH
DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF WAR
FOR INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY
ACTING DIRECTOR, DEFENSE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
AND SECURITY AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF WAR
Mr. Overbaugh. Good morning, Chairman Sessions, Ranking
Member Mfume, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It is
an honor and a privilege to represent the over 13,000
civilians, service members, contractors of the Defense
Counterintelligence and Security Agency.
I was appointed Acting Director of DCSA on November 19,
2025, with a clear mandate from the Under Secretary of War for
Intelligence and Security, Hon. Bradley Hansell, to ensure DCSA
finally delivers the critical security capabilities our Nation
requires. I understand this Committee has received testimony
from previous leaders suggesting the Agency was largely on
track. Respectfully, that assessment was too optimistic. The
truth is, DCSA has been an agency in the midst of an identity
crisis. After it was cobbled together from disparate programs,
DCSA never truly self-actualized or forged a unified culture. I
contend that this foundational issue has directly contributed
to the significant challenges in delivering both Trusted
Workforce 2.0, and the National Background Investigation
Services program on time and on budget.
It is my assessment that previous Agency leadership, in an
effort to establish a brand, focused more on marketing than on
delivering value and allowing that value to speak for itself.
The Agency's original purpose became blurred, drifting toward
an intelligence-focused entity rather than embracing its vital
security mission.
Instead of focusing on executing its most important
functions with excellence, the Agency attempted to accumulate
more missions to the point that it failed to achieve its core
purpose. Altogether, the lack of a viable vision, clear
expectations, and leadership accountability from past
Department oversight allowed DCSA to fail.
Under Secretary Hansell dismissed DCSA leadership because
the transformation required here cannot be incremental. It must
be complete and total. He had little confidence that the
leadership he inherited would have been successful in leading
the change from a sclerotic, compliance-based bureaucracy to a
customer-centric, business-oriented entity the Department of
War and the Nation need DCSA to be.
While the Under Secretary continues to search to select a
new director with the optimal mix of private sector technology
and government experience, he directed me and the interim DCSA
leadership team to steer toward a business model that mirrors
Secretary Hegseth's approach of eliminating bureaucratic
processes in favor of speed and innovation. In my short time as
Acting Director, I have found what I expected: a dedicated,
talented, and innovative workforce unfortunately shackled by
burdensome processes designed not to empower them, but to
maintain the status quo and sustain layers of management. Our
focus now is on unleashing their potential.
To that end, we are designing the Agency for purpose,
moving it from a cumbersome bureaucracy to an agile
organization that can serve as a model for the rest of
government. At DCSA, we will build a workforce of the future
founded on a culture of meritocracy, efficiency, creativity,
empowerment, and accountability that enables timely, risk-
informed decisions.
DCSA's struggles to deliver NBIS and implement Trusted
Workforce 2.0 are but symptoms of the deeper cultural problems
I have outlined. These two efforts are not merely programs.
They are the backbone of our national security personnel
vetting enterprise. Their delivery is nonnegotiable.
While the Government Accountability Office rightly noted
recent progress on the NBIS program's cost and schedule
estimates, we must be honest that this progress is fragile.
Without the cultural and structural reforms we are now
implementing, technical gains alone will not secure success.
Absent this transformation and a refocus on its core mission,
DCSA would surely continue to fail to meet its targets for NBIS
development and deployment. We look forward to partnering with
GAO to give us an objective look at the Agency as we continue
to make reforms.
Under Secretary Hansell and I share as a top priority the
delivery and development of NBIS by Fiscal Year 2028. He and I
are aided in this task by the Under Secretary of War for
Acquisition and Sustainment, Hon. Mike Duffey, who has
designated NBIS as an acquisition category 1 special interest
program, subjecting it to the highest level of scrutiny.
At DCSA, we are overhauling our governance, acquisition
strategy, and partnership with industry to ensure every
decision serves the core mission. Through the Trusted Workforce
Implementation group, we work to validate the policy
requirements and make sure that they are matured through the
executive agents and are translated into real-world
capabilities delivered by NBIS.
These goals are to get people to work faster, eliminate
waste, optimize risk management, and improve the experience for
our government customers.
While the full transition to Trusted Workforce 2.0 and NBIS
will be complete by Fiscal Year 2028, we are accelerating the
development of key capabilities now, including adjudicative
improvements for public trust cases, expanded use of interim
secret clearances, and broader application of vetting services
features.
Even with the renewed vision, this will not be easy. NBIS
is a massive undertaking intended to replace deeply entrenched
legacy systems across the Federal Government. Getting this
right is as important as getting it done quickly. DCSA now has
the appropriate oversight, a clear mandate for change, and a
leadership team committed to transparency within the
Department, with partners in the interagency, industry, and
other stakeholders, and with you here in Congress.
The exceptional team at DCSA is the driving force that will
make this transformation possible. My commitment to you is that
I will continue to foster a culture of innovation and
accountability that empowers them and that I will maintain
oversight in my role as Deputy Under Secretary for Intelligence
and Security.
We appreciate Congress' engagement on this critical issue,
and look forward to demonstrating, through our actions and
results, that DCSA is on a new and better path. Thank you, and
I look forward to addressing your questions.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much.
The gentlewoman is now recognized.
STATEMENT OF MS. ALISSA CZYZ
DIRECTOR, DEFENSE CAPABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT
U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Czyz. Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Mfume, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify again on GAO's work on personnel vetting, and
specifically the National Background Investigation Services
system, or NBIS for short.
As you know, the U.S. Government relies on over four
million personnel with security clearances to protect our
Nation. Personnel vetting helps ensure a trusted workforce, but
the government has struggled with managing this process for
years. This issue has been on GAO's high-risk list since 2018,
due in part to challenges with IT systems. Reform is urgently
needed. The Federal Government is taking too long to grant
security clearances to essential personnel. For example, it
takes over 200 days to grant a top-secret clearance. This is 80
percent longer than the government's goal.
As you know, after a massive cybersecurity breach of OPM's
systems in 2015, the President tasked DOD with building a new
IT system to manage personnel vetting. The Department began
developing NBIS in 2016. My statement today focuses on the
Department's progress with NBIS and what actions are still
needed to ensure its success and achieve personnel vetting
reform.
First, the good news: DCSA has made progress addressing our
recommendations. It now has a reliable cost estimate for NBIS
for the first time ever. A reliable estimate should help the
program better manage expenses, avoid unexpected increases, and
promote transparency. However, the government is years late in
delivering NBIS. This failure happened in part because DCSA had
not developed a reliable schedule for the system as we first
recommended several years ago. DOD had originally planned for
NBIS to be fully functional in 2019 and has changed its
deadline several times since then. In 2024, DCSA paused NBIS
development while it drafted a recovery plan. Just last summer,
the Department began development again. DCSA now projects it
will finish NBIS development in 2027, or Fiscal Year 2028,
according to DCSA's statement. This is nearly a decade after
its original goal.
The latest NBIS schedule shows some improvements in key
areas, but overall, we find that it is still not reliable,
putting NBIS at risk of further delays.
Notably, DCSA has not done a risk analysis and thus cannot
determine where slippage is most likely to occur. Without
implementing this best practice, it cannot effectively target
actions to milestones that are at the most risk. We are making
new recommendations in our written statement today for DCSA to
address these and other deficiencies.
Having a reliable schedule is a basic program management
principle. We agree with Mr. Overbaugh, DCSA needs to get this
right given the program's history of missed milestones.
Further, while DCSA has a reliable cost estimate for NBIS
now, delays have caused the price tag to balloon. The
Department has already spent at least $2.4 billion developing
new NBIS systems and maintaining OPM's legacy systems. It now
projects spending an additional $2.2 billion to finish NBIS,
bringing the total cost to the taxpayer to about $4.6 billion.
This is a 100 percent increase over DCSA's previous
projections.
Finally, strong and sustained leadership is critically
important, especially with high-risk government programs like
this one. When I last testified, NBIS had been failing. Since
then, DCSA has taken some important actions to try to get
things on track, but shortcomings still persist. This, at a
time when DCSA does not have a permanent director, and the time
it takes to get a security clearance continues to far exceed
goals.
Strong leadership and oversight, like the important work
this Subcommittee is doing, are essential for the program to
continue to make improvements and ultimately deliver what it
has promised. Simply put, personnel vetting reform has the
potential to better protect our country. But the IT must be in
place for this to happen.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for your time. I look forward to your
questions.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. Detailed information
about what needs to be accomplished, I think, is very clear
from your constant reports, and I appreciate that.
We now move to our Members, and I will move to the
distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina, the gentlewoman,
the Chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
No one put in my notes that I should be very concerned
about this, but I am, along with all of you. What our witnesses
have said today is very, very troubling. But let me say, last
fall, the Subcommittee was supposed to hear from DCSA Director
Cattler shortly before he left Federal service. While I
appreciate Mr. Overbaugh's attendance here today as Acting
Director, I am disappointed there is still no permanent
replacement for Director Cattler. As Ms. Czyz just said, steady
leadership is important for continuity and accountability. The
National Background Investigation Service needs to become
operational. Having a permanent director at NCSA would send a
strong message that DOD is serious about the issue.
Can you elaborate, Mr. Overbaugh, on how delays in the
implementation of NBIS impacts other Federal agencies that rely
on timely clearances?
Mr. Overbaugh. Representative Foxx, I can. It is very clear
to me that the entire Federal Government and all the agencies
and partners that rely on DCSA to deliver Trusted Workforce 2.0
are impacted when employees cannot get to work in a timely and
efficient manner.
Ms. Foxx. Well, as a followup, based on DCSA's recent
review of NBIS implementation, what actions are you and others
taking to get it back on track? We have just heard it is going
to cost an additional $2.2 billion, and be delayed to 2027,
2028. What in the world are you all doing?
Mr. Overbaugh. That is the exact question that I asked,
Representative Foxx, when I took over the Agency in November. I
can tell you that our teammates at DCSA have done a fantastic
job on establishing the technology required with NBIS to ensure
that we can get to Trusted Workforce 2.0. What the Agency had
failed to do, however, in the past, was match emerging
requirements, the business or the mission side, if you will,
with that technology. As a result of that identified failure,
the Trusted Workforce Integration Group was stood up. That
brought together our technology specialists along with our
operations and mission side.
Together, they produced, over the last couple months, a key
set of milestones that we can use to judge DCSA's performance
on delivering Trusted Workforce 2.0 moving forward. And those
milestones are laid out in the PAC principle, the Performance
Accountability Council's Fiscal Year 2026 implementation
strategy.
Now, this is a great step forward, and it gives us
something that we can sink our teeth into to hold ourselves
accountable for progress. It is not complete. We need to do
more here. We need to use these milestones to break down--
almost a complete work breakdown structure so we are then able
to identify the things that our GAO partners have told us are
critically important; namely, critical paths and the
identification of risks.
That is forthcoming. We are looking forward to producing
that document in March, April timeframe, and would certainly
look forward in future interactions with this body to share the
work that we have done there.
Ms. Foxx. And the Chairman mentioned the issue of
transparency and the need for that. Are you committing that the
reports and the progress are all going to be transparent?
Mr. Overbaugh. Without question.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Ms. Czyz, in the Committee's 2024 hearing, you raised
concerns about cybersecurity privacy protections. Has DCSA
taken concrete steps to mitigate those risks, and have you seen
evidence these steps are effective?
Ms. Czyz. Yes. DCSA has taken swift action to address our
recommendations. At the time of our last hearing, we put out a
report with 13 recommendations, mostly focused on the
management of cybersecurity, making sure that there is current
guidance and effective oversight. The previous DCSA Director,
Director Cattler, made it a priority to implement all of those
recommendations within one year, which is very fast for a GAO
report to have all recommendations closed in one year, so we
think that that is a very positive efforts.
DCSA does need to remain very, very vigilant on this. This
is the whole reason that the Department has a responsibility
for personnel vetting because of that cybersecurity breach in
2015 that compromised, as the Chairman mentioned, data on over
22 million Federal employees and contractors. We do have work
that is not available in the public setting to discuss, looking
more specifically at NBIS and testing of cybersecurity controls
and issued a recent report in December on that, which we have
discussed with DCSA. But we are confident that they are taking
it seriously, yes.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for recognizing me. I yield back.
Mr. Sessions. The gentlewoman yields back her time. Thank
you very much. The gentleman, Mr. Mfume, is recognized.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to yield to the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Walkinshaw, who has waived onto
the Committee, and I will pick up with my questions at some
other point in the hearing. Mr. Walkinshaw.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Thank you. I thank the Ranking Member and
Mr. Chairman, thank you for having me today, and to our
witnesses for being here.
Mr. Overbaugh, as you laid out in your testimony, you have
many responsibilities in your role as Deputy Under Secretary
for Intelligence and Security. I know that in your role you
serve as Acting Director of DCSA, as we are discussing today.
You oversee Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), the National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the National Security Agency
(NSA). You serve as an advisor to the Under Secretary of
Defense on intelligence-related matters. And given all of that,
I guess my question for you is why should the Committee and the
American people have confidence that you can manage this
multibillion-dollar critical modernization while performing
your many other duties, including safeguarding our Nation's
secrets from adversaries, ensuring proper vetting of
individuals with access to classified information, and, as I
noted, acting as an advisor to the Under Secretary?
Mr. Overbaugh. Representative Walkinshaw, I appreciate that
question very much. And the short answer is, I am surrounded by
a fantastic group of teammates who are assisting me in this
endeavor. I have down at DCSA as Acting Deputy Director, Ms.
Tara Jones, who also comes from our office at the Under
Secretary of War for Intelligence and Security. In addition, we
have Acting Chief of Staff Colonel Brooke Carr. Our team down
there--and they are down there on a permanent basis to assist
me in leading that organization. And I have fantastic teammates
as well up in my office in the Pentagon.
And so, while I understand from an external perspective it
looks like we are stretched thin, and in all honesty, there are
times when it feels like it. But I will tell you that the
passion that we have as a group of teammates to get this task
right, energizes all of us and the entire team. And, quite
honestly, it is an honor and a blessing to be able to do this.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Thank you.
In a recent January 22, 2026, briefing with Committee staff
here, I think it is accurate that you said you intended to
eliminate what you have called inefficiencies within DCSA and
suggested--and you can correct me if this is wrong--that you
felt there is a need to eliminate positions at the Agency. So,
are you planning to reduce the workforce at DCSA? And if so,
how will you ensure that those cuts to the workforce do not
further derail this critical modernization?
Mr. Overbaugh. I think DCSA faces a challenge,
Representative, that the entire government faces and, quite
frankly, our society writ large faces. And that is the impact
that technology is having and is going to have on the way that
we work moving forward.
DCSA faces this dynamic quite acutely with our
responsibility to implement NBIS and Trusted Workforce 2.0. I
cannot say at this time exactly what the workforce of the
future at DCSA looks like exactly, but I know that we have an
obligation to empower our teammates to ensure that they can be
as effective as humanly possible in the future of work.
Mr. Walkinshaw. So, you do not have any immediate plans to
reduce the workforce short-or medium-term?
Mr. Overbaugh. Quite the contrary, Representative
Walkinshaw. We are constantly looking at the DCSA organization
and determining where we can find efficiencies. I have no
implementable plans at this time, but it is something that we
will be looking at moving forward.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Okay. One of the things I understand this
Committee has asked for previously is an organizational chart
for your staffing and any proposed changes. Is that something
you can commit to providing to us?
Mr. Overbaugh. I would absolutely be happy to provide that
to you once we have a clear understanding of the direction that
we think we need to go in.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Overbaugh, DCSA's job, as you know, is to vet cleared
personnel and ultimately ensure the protection of classified
U.S. Government information. It is a cornerstone of our
national security. I appreciate the passion that you have for
the work and that your teammates have. I think I share the
concerns on the dais here that the mandate is far too large and
critical to function indefinitely under an acting director no
matter how passionate. We need a director focused on its
counterintelligence mission who has the skills and the
bandwidth. I do not question that you have the skills. I
question whether you have the bandwidth to keep this project
moving forward. I hope you can commit to providing this
Committee with a hiring plan and criteria for a new director
promptly.
Thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time. Thank you
very much. I have been approached by several Members who plan
to be in attendance today. I would move next to the gentleman,
Mr. Mfume, for any time he would choose.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just be deliberately redundant for a quick second.
NBIS, and the NBIS project, is, as you have heard repeatedly
today, ten years behind schedule and already billions and
billions over budget. So, I would like to know--and by the way,
this keeps me up at night because America's secrets are at risk
the longer we do not do what we ought to do here. And the
Russians and the Chinese who can tune into C-SPAN whenever they
want to, to be assured that we are behind, will look at what we
are doing and, year after year after year, get emboldened
because we are so transparent about why and when we expect to
have this completed.
So, Mr. Overbaugh, when you look, as you have been doing
since November when you came on board, at cost overruns, which
ones are the most apparent to you?
Mr. Overbaugh. Representative--or, excuse me--Ranking
Member Mfume, to me, the most alerting is the overall amount of
money that we have spent so far writ large, the $2.4 billion,
and not delivering the capabilities that we promised over time
to the American people.
It is--there are many details within that. The failure to,
as I mentioned earlier, to match up the operations and business
side with the technical side, there are redundancies and
inefficiencies in there. But I think that that number overall,
the $2.4 million--correction--billion, is inexcusable and one
of the things that drives me and the team on a daily basis to
fix the things in the past that we have not done well so that
we can deliver for the American people.
Mr. Mfume. Do you think your predecessor felt the same way?
Was he driven the same way?
Mr. Overbaugh. I will not speak to the intent or what was
going on inside the minds or hearts of any of my predecessors.
I know that the organization today sits ready, and they are
excited about delivering for the American people.
Mr. Mfume. Well, and I understand and I appreciate it, but
you have to realize what it is like to sit here year after year
after year after year and be told the same thing, that it is
getting better, the organization understands, we have got the
right path, we are going to be transparent. And in that
process, contractor after contractor is billing the U.S.
Government for services that I assume are never fully completed
within that caveat saying we could not do this, we will not do
this, or we need more money for that. That is very, very
disturbing, and it is not your fault. I am just giving you the
history of how we got to this point and why it is so very
disturbing to us.
You have heard the term, ``fat rats.'' Well, a lot of them
are making out with a lot of money and not providing the kind
of service that they are being contracted for and paid for. And
Ms. Czyz, if I could just ask you the same question. What are
some identifiable cost overruns that repeatedly, year after
year, GAO looks at, identifies, and points out?
Ms. Czyz. Yes. In fact, our previous analysis showed that
DCSA did not have a reliable cost estimate for NBIS. It was not
accurate. It was not comprehensive. It was not credible and it
was not well-documented. So, we cannot tell you where the
problems were. It was across the entire estimate. It could not
be relied upon for planning.
Now they have taken important steps including conducting an
independent cost estimate to get a better handle on cost, so we
are at a better place now. That estimate needs to be updated
annually. And so, I advise the Subcommittee to stay on top of
DCSA, as we will, to make sure that that is updated annually
with actual costs, but they are better positioned now.
Unfortunately, and if I can kind of veer off a little bit,
earlier on in the program, I think one of the key shortcomings
was a lack of oversight, right? So, DCSA was really policing
itself in its actions. No one broader in the Department was
taking a look at what DCSA was doing as NBIS was going off the
rails. There were some steps put in place for Intelligence and
Security (I&S), where Mr. Overbaugh is from, to be now the
program sponsor, and then even higher within the Department to
have milestone decision authority.
There were some other mechanisms put in place, a
requirements board, for example, that is supposed to meet
quarterly, and some other reporting requirements. Where we do
still have concerns, is some of these oversight mechanisms are
great that they are in place but we are not actually seeing
them working as they are supposed to be working. So, that
requirements board that I just mentioned is supposed to meet
quarterly. We think it met last Friday, but before then, had
only met in June, right? So, maybe once a year.
So, it is good to put those mechanisms in place, but you
have to exercise the oversight as well too. So, that is
something that we will be taking a look at as the program moves
on, making sure that oversight is actually working.
Mr. Mfume. And what would GAO immediately recommend be done
as you look at where we are in this process? Notwithstanding
the things you just mentioned.
Ms. Czyz. Right. I think we have been on record for years
that you really cannot plan effectively without having a
reliable schedule for the NBIS program. Milestones have shifted
for years. We are decades--it is a decade-long program now.
Costs have increased 100 percent. We still do not have a
reliable schedule. So, it is great that we are mirroring that
policy with milestones, but our recent analysis showed that
almost half, 46 percent, of milestones in the Trusted Workforce
2.0 strategy that are NBIS-related have slipped over the past
nine months. 46 percent because of NBIS delays, right?
So, that is something that has got to be addressed right
away. We have new recommendations, kind of to target in on what
needs to be done for a schedule. And it is great that Mr.
Overbaugh is very focused on this. But this is something that
we have been talking about for years. We talked about at the
last hearing as well. Without getting this in place, the
program still is at risk of slippage going forward and then
increased cost to the taxpayer.
Mr. Mfume. And, Mr. Overbaugh, I know you have been there
since November, but do you have some semblance of a schedule, a
sketch, an outline--are you talking directly to GAO to figure
out how and when that ought to be completed?
Mr. Overbaugh. Ranking Member Mfume, the schedule has yet
to be developed, and that is one of the great things that we
have discovered through our partnership with GAO. And as a
reminder, as we dig down into the milestones that the TWIG
recently established, we will be producing that schedule. That
is the document that I hope to bring back to this body in the
March and April timeframe.
I do want to push back on one thing that you said earlier.
You mentioned that it is not my fault. I just want to give you
the confidence, sir, as I am Acting Director, everything that
this organization does or fails to do is now my responsibility.
We do take on the fact that the previous failures are now our
responsibility. And we own them. And that is part of the
cultural change that we are trying to instantiate at DCSA.
Mr. Mfume. Well, that is good to know and it is good to
hear, but it really was not your fault because you were not
there. But I commend you for owning them.
So, are you saying to the Chairman and Members of the
Committee that by late March or early April, this schedule will
be in place? We can call another hearing and talk about it?
Mr. Overbaugh. What our team is attempting to produce by
March, April timeframe is a business operationalization
synchronization schedule. That is our attempt to get at the
critical paths and the risks that GAO has rightly pointed out
that we continue to lack. Once we have that established, I am
happy to bring that product back. We have, as a goal, to
establish that by the March and April timeframe.
Mr. Mfume. And just one other question. Are you interacting
with GAO to make sure what you produce is exactly what they
have identified?
Mr. Overbaugh. We will be moving forward. I had the
opportunity to meet Ms. Czyz the other day in preparation for
this hearing, and we agreed that we would interact on a
quarterly basis moving forward. And we look forward to them
helping us provide an objective look at our organization as we
try and implement the change.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir. We will move to the distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee. You are recognized.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One of the things I like about your Chairmanship and your
relationship with our Ranking Member--I always dig his line of
questioning. And sometimes, like myself, it takes me a little
longer than 5 minutes, and I appreciate you allowing us to do
that.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman is recognized. And the
gentleman does understand from his experience in dealing with
Mr. Mfume and myself, I would like for you to take the time
that is necessary to express yourself, as well our witnesses,
to get everything out. And the gentleman is now recognized.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ma'am, your last name is Czyz? Is that how you pronounce
it?
Ms. Czyz. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Burchett. Well, Burchett. Nobody gets that right
either. I was on some show this week, and I said it is birch
like the tree and ``ett'' like I just ett breakfast. And they
all laughed. And my wife got on me and said, ``No, it is not
Burchett. It is Burchett.'' It is Burchett. You know? I mean,
they can never get it right, so anyway. Thank you.
Since 2024, how has the Defense Counterintelligence and
Security Agency, the DCSA, progress in addressing the NBIS
high-risk areas like cybersecurity, and what issues remain?
Ms. Czyz. So, since 2024, DCSA has made significant
progress addressing cybersecurity issues with NBIS. We had
issued a report in 2024 really focused on the management and
lack of management attention on cybersecurity. We made 13
recommendations at that time. The DCSA leadership took swift
action and implemented all of those recommendations.
Mr. Burchett. Did you say they implemented all of those?
Ms. Czyz. They implemented all 13 recommendations from our
2024 report on cybersecurity, yes.
Mr. Burchett. Which of those are you most concerned about
moving forward?
Ms. Czyz. Right. So, we were very concerned that there was
just a lack of management oversight of cybersecurity in
general. They were using outdated guidance. There were issues
with privacy controls. There were folks that did not have the
necessary training to use the system.
So, those were some issues that we pointed out, and they
did take immediate action, addressed all of those
recommendations in a very fast timeframe for addressing GAO
recommendations.
As I mentioned earlier, we do have a nonpublic report that
we did produce in December on cybersecurity, too, looking at
testing of cybersecurity controls.
So, it is a topic that we stay on, we know DCSA is taking
seriously. But the entire reason that the department has a
responsibility for the IT system was because of the
cybersecurity breach in 2015 of OPM systems, so it is
critically important to get that right.
Mr. Burchett. OPM means?
Ms. Czyz. The Office of Personnel Management, who had
previous responsibility.
Mr. Burchett. In my office, we do not use initials because
I am 61 and it kind of fills up my brain.
Ms. Czyz. Right. The Office of Personnel Management had
previously had responsibility for personnel vetting, but that
moved after that cybersecurity breach.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Czyz. Sure.
Mr. Burchett. When I get back to the office, I am going to
have to ask some of my young people exactly what you just told
me. So, thank you.
Sir, let me ask you a question. And your name is Overbaugh.
I believe I can get that one right. Thank you, brother.
Since you were appointed, what steps have you taken to
address the cultural issues identified? I think you made them
in your opening statement.
Mr. Overbaugh. Representative Burchett, thank you for the
opportunity to chat with you today.
There have been a couple things that we have done from a
cultural perspective.
The first thing was we looked at leadership across the
organization, and we identified where we had individuals who
were stymieing progress because they were too comfortable with
the status quo, and we made some changes in that regard.
The second thing that we have done is myself and Ms. Jones
have traveled to a number of the different locations where our
DCSA colleagues and teammates reside. We have over 163
different locations across the United States. And we have begun
to hear from folks who work on the front line across our agency
about the types of things that we can do at a leadership level
to change the culture.
Ultimately, the steps that we are taking are designed
toward transforming it from a reactive to a proactive
organization, from a risk-based or--correction--from a fear-
based culture to one that looks for opportunities to continue
to shore up security for the American people.
Mr. Burchett. This is not in my notes, but it jogged a
memory of encrypted messages. They always, well, they cannot
get into this, it is encrypted, and then there is some kid in a
garage in southern California who has figured out how to do it
in about 15 minutes.
Is there anything truly encrypted, in your opinion?
Mr. Overbaugh. Representative Burchett, we could go into
greater detail on that particular topic, but not necessarily in
this forum. And I would want to bring back to you, from my role
in I&S, a more fulsome picture on that perhaps in a closed
setting in the future.
Mr. Burchett. Can I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman? I
have run over just a minute.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, brother.
What do you think--what is your all's plan on getting
everything on track for the next three years? Do you have a
plan? I mean, I do not want you to disclose any secrets, but do
you feel like you can obtain those objectives?
Mr. Overbaugh. Yes, I do believe that we can attain the
objectives, and the plan relies on a couple parts.
First, going back to what our GAO colleagues have talked
with us about, we will and we must get our hands around a
detailed schedule that enables the Agency itself to hold itself
accountable and for our oversight partners to hold us
accountable.
That is a nonnegotiable. We will achieve that in the coming
months. And I very much look forward to coming back, either as
Acting Director or in my oversight role in I&S, to report to
you and your colleagues about the progress that we have made
there.
In addition, though, we do have to change the culture of
the organization, like I talked about earlier. We have to be
adaptable, we have to be flexible, and we have to take on an
attitude that our primary responsibility is to provide
decisionmakers with risk-informed information so that they can
make assessments about the trustworthiness of their workforce.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again for letting me
go over. I wish more committees would allow us to do this.
And I appreciate the relationship that you have with the
Ranking Member, because I think more committees could probably
fashion a little bit more of their attitude toward us lower-
level Members if they would follow your two leads.
So, thank you all.
Mr. Sessions. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee and will
tell him that Mr. Mfume and I intend to maintain this
relationship for the benefit of not only Members, but also the
American people.
Mr. Burchett. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say, I
tend to like Mr. Mfume more than I like you. And I just want to
say that for the record. Keep that off the record, though.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman is not recognized for more
time. In fact, Tim, it is with great respect that you offer
that feedback, because Mr. Mfume, in my opinion, is an
outstanding example of collegiality and something which I
think, as Mr. Burchett noticed, is desperately in need here on
a regular basis. And so, thank you very much.
I will now yield myself such time as I may consume.
The opportunity to have both of you here with what I
consider to be outstanding or sterling insight and ability to
accept, as I say--you are accepting the role, Mr. Overbaugh,
and the responsibility and the good things and the bad things.
Ms. Czyz, part of what we are talking about today, we do
not always get down to brass tacks, but what Mr. Overbaugh has
spoken about is his analysis--which I do accept, appreciate,
and respect--about how professional they are, about their
ability to do their work.
He did, comma, suggest that there are some things that
still need more tinkering with, more reliability.
Do you get into those management, personnel type things of
frailties of outcomes that he spoke about?
Ms. Czyz. I would say that the progress within this is very
recent, and so it is fragile. Sustained leadership attention is
critical for the program to continue to make the improvements
that it has done recently and then continue to implement the
recommendations that GAO has made for several years to have a
schedule, to make sure the oversight mechanisms are in place,
to marry up those milestones with Trusted Workforce 2.0, so we
are not seeing continued slippage down the road.
Mr. Sessions. Okay.
Ms. Czyz. So, it is important to not take--this is great
that there is some progress, but I would agree with Mr.
Overbaugh, it is recent and it is fragile if we do not have the
leadership and oversight mechanisms in place.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Overbaugh, the discussions, without
naming names, but do you find that there are people within the
organization who are not interested in its success, in
mastering the timeframes and allowing slippage, that they were
seemingly happy with their performance that you have described?
Why did this even slip months? And were those people spoken
to realistically or simply exited from the organization?
Mr. Overbaugh. Chairman Sessions, I will tell you that 99.9
percent of the workforce today is absolutely passionate and
capable for the task that we have in front of us.
I did find some individuals who embody the culture of
wanting to maintain the status quo. Where we find those
individuals, we will take the opportunity to give them a chance
to serve in another capacity.
But for DCSA moving forward, we need a team that is 100
percent dedicated to the mission, that understands that we have
a critical mission, and that we achieve that mission through
the hard-earned dollars of the American taxpayer.
Mr. Sessions. Okay. Let us stay on this pathway, please.
You mentioned that you have offices, different people in
160-some different locations. Do you have metrics on them? And
are they part of the slippage? Or are we talking about systems
that they enter data into that then talk to people looking for
more back-and-forth to then agree to that and then move? Is it
system oriented or do you have a metric that determined it was
people also?
Mr. Overbaugh. One of the things I recognize that we need
at DCSA is a way to visualize the performance of our entire
organization succinctly and clearly. We do not have that today.
That is one of the things that I am working on internally to
the organization, to be able to see, for example, from cradle
to grave, how our investigative processes are going.
We have some of that picture right now and the team does a
very good job of providing that data, but we can do much
better. It will enable us to find those areas in the funnel
where we have clogs or where we have obstacles that as leaders
we can first identify how we can remove those obstacles for our
teammates. And if it ends up being a personnel challenge, we
can address that as well.
Mr. Sessions. So, what have you found?
Mr. Overbaugh. As it relates to what in particular, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Sessions. The delay of your 160 different offices. You
seemingly would have an idea that you have a problem or do not
have a problem or can set a standard that seemingly could be
established rather quickly if that is the issue.
Once again, it is hard for me to know if that is the
issue--people-oriented responses, decisionmaking, moving things
along--or whether it is correspondingly in the processes of
systems that then do not effectively provide the information to
decisionmaking.
Ms. Czyz, will you answer that?
Ms. Czyz. Our work has found that it has mostly been in the
lack of basic program management principles. Again, and not
having a reliable schedule for the program.
We do know that DCSA has taken some efforts even before Mr.
Overbaugh----
Mr. Sessions. So, you are worried about headquarters'
decisionmaking for fixing the systems that people operate
within.
I was asking him--and we will get here--the people who do
the work and then that process, is it then the systems that are
causing the delays?
And so, I want to then focus on the 160 offices that you
are evaluating and yet the systems or tools by which they have
to operate, where are the issues that you found?
And there could be some of both. But this is where then I
want to come to Ms. Czyz and say you have and GAO has a broader
viewpoint than just this organization on how to effectively
deal with management systems and structures and try and work
with them to find how to update which comes first, which vendor
comes first, which system needs updating, which system needs
new standards or procedures.
So, let me go back and have you both--feel free, once
again, we are trying to get to the bottom of this.
You went out and visited some offices and you had an
opportunity, which is very professionally oriented and good.
What did you find out there?
Mr. Overbaugh. I found both, Mr. Chairman, quite frankly. I
found a dedicated workforce but one that suffered from lack of
our technology integration and one that also, unfortunately, at
some areas in management, was too oriented toward the status
quo.
That is why the recommendations that the GAO has made to us
about tools like the critical path and the risk schedule are so
important, because metrics will drive behavior within the
organization.
Once we have that clearer picture, once we have those
metrics, we are going to be able to drive that cultural
behavioral change in a much more effective manner.
But the short answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, was I
found both.
Mr. Sessions. Okay. So, in other words, when you take on a
particular issue, subject, a person, and you have got a request
that may have been sitting there for a long time, you have then
identified that we need certain data, certain information,
processing of their form, verifying the data and information,
touching base where an investigator will move forward, getting
that investigator's recommendation, looking at feedback that
others provided, and then sifting through that, and then
placing that into some sort of system where that is then vetted
properly.
That is people oriented. No, no, it is really system, too,
because if you have got a system problem, they are not able to
effectively do that.
Is that what you also have, a system problem?
Mr. Overbaugh. In the sense--if I understand your concern--
--
Mr. Sessions. You put your data in something that would be
reviewed by--you decide how many--but several people. It is not
just a one-person process. You have got an investigator that
goes out and they put their data and information.
Is that a problem of getting that data and information? We
are dissecting this now in this Subcommittee. Is that a
problem? Because it seems like that may be part of your daytime
job.
Mr. Overbaugh. Yes, Chairman Sessions. And what I would say
is that is--the problem that you are highlighting is the exact
reason why we are--why it is so important that we get in this
online so that we are able to achieve the goals laid out in
Trusted Workforce 2.0. As it stands right now, from a system
standpoint, we are using old and antiquated technology, I think
developed in the 1980s, in order to do the task of personnel
vetting.
Mr. Sessions. And we hear that, and that is that $2.5
billion, and then the need to update it or make it work, $2.5
billion.
My point is, are you looking for the director to cut
through that and say, ``We are going to do this until we get
that done in ten years''?
I am worried about the ten years. I mean, you may not have
what you are asking for, for ten more years. And I am asking
you, how are we going to do that?
And then looking at Ms. Czyz and say, doesn't the GAO--I
think the answer is yes--doesn't the GAO have some
recommendation of which one of these systems may need to
spend--I do not know whether it is $600 million, I do not know
what it is--to update it to make something happen, if not a
relationship that you have identified to getting data quicker
and faster, even though it is not the NBIS delivery. It is an
interim step.
Somebody has got to do that. We cannot wait ten years. Mr.
Mfume and I will not wait ten years. Will you? That answer is
no.
I know you are very glib at understanding and nimble at
understanding this, but I still have not heard back, ``Okay, we
got a problem here, we know we have got to fix that. We got
good people, but this system, this one right here, has to be
updated for these other factors to work.''
And then Ms. Czyz to be able to say, ``Yes, I think that is
right, that we have got to do this, this one first, this one
second, this one third over the next year to better the lot
where we are.''
That is what I am looking for. I think that is what Mr.
Mfume and I are looking for, not, ``Well, we are going to wait
ten years. Well, we have got good people, but we have got a
systems problem.''
What the heck are we doing to work together to say we are
going to update this one thing, which is material to the work
that has got to be done. I do not want something out there
done. I want something in here.
I have, unfortunately, been around enough in life where I
have had to wait on computer systems, but we did--we understood
when that was going to happen.
So, get ready for this next round when you are back. I want
to know what systems. I do not need to know the vendor, you do
not need to do a flow chart, but that you have taken the five
or four most critical systems, and they are online, you are
with standards and procedures and understanding about what they
are supposed to do, and go get that darn thing done. I mean, we
are not looking at paint drying and we are not going to do
that.
Likewise, I do not think Mr. Mfume and I want to manage
your job, either one of you. We want to provide oversight. We
want to make sure, as you talked about, and one of the best
things you said today was we got to get a person with the
bandwidth, the bandwidth not to sit back and say, ``I cannot
get my job done because my boss is always gone.''
Clear lines of authority, delegation authority, clear lines
of responsibility, timeframes that are professionally
established to be met, not to slip. And I just think that this
has got to be done.
Ms. Czyz, can you make sense of what I have said?
Ms. Czyz. Yes.
Mr. Sessions. Do you have the desire and ability to
understand the systems that if he talked to you or you would
know where they are, what the problem is, and provided feedback
back to them to say, ``We think this system is the first that
needs to be updated,'' not waiting for NBIS? This is a backlog
or a clog or a bottleneck in the system.
Do you think you have that level of detail?
Ms. Czyz. So, those are what the recommendations we have
made in our written statement go toward, the sequencing of
events.
Mr. Sessions. Sequencing.
Ms. Czyz. That was our whole point here, that the NBIS
program has been focused on an agile program, very focused on
near-term gains, that they are not looking at, if a milestone
slips here, what is the effect of it down the road, right?
And that is what Mr. Overbaugh I believe wants, that
visibility, and talked about having that visibility for him at
the leadership level, too, so he can take action.
But he does not have that information right now because the
NBIS program does not have a schedule set up to be able to
sequence those events, to be able to identify risks, and then
to be able to take action targeted toward those systems.
Mr. Sessions. Then how can we say it is going to be done in
ten years? How can you say you have got a schedule in ten years
yet if you do not have that schedule?
Mr. Overbaugh. Well, Chairman Sessions, we do not have ten
years. We have a couple years. And we are charged with
delivering Trusted Workforce 2.0 by Fiscal Year 2028.
Mr. Sessions. Right.
Mr. Overbaugh. And I am quite confident that we can.
To address what I think one of the things that you are
talking about is this. Aside from NBIS, in our current
procedures, do we have the ability to generate trust decisions
for our workforce? And the answer to that question is yes, we
can.
We are operating with legacy systems, but we do have
dedicated professional teammates who have experience with those
systems and all the associated bolt-ons that go with it to
provide those trust decisions.
We are not where we want to be. And as we implement and
integrate NBIS, the team is looking at continual improvements
that we can make to the process.
Mr. Sessions. So, would that be against the 80 percent
model that Ms. Czyz spoke about? The 80 percent model, you are
80 percent inefficient, is the way I took her comments.
Mr. Overbaugh. I would need to hear again, ma'am.
Ms. Czyz. Right. It is the time for granting top secret
clearances is 80 percent longer than the government school.
Mr. Sessions. It is just one number that she threw out.
Ms. Czyz. Right. It is one data point.
Mr. Overbaugh. Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And that is a
concern that we have had. And I am encouraged by the work that
DCSA has done to get down the investigative backlog to a number
that is more acceptable. I think we spoke the other day on the
fact it is about 100,000 now.
Mr. Session. Yes, you did.
Mr. Overbaugh. The team thinks that it can get to about
70,000 as part of a normal workflow process.
But we are also looking at things like the better that we
get on the investigative side, we have to make sure that we are
not overburdening the folks that do the adjudication. There are
interoperabilities and relationships between those two tasks
that will impact one another.
So, I am absolutely focused on the concerns that you are
raising, and, again, why I would go back to the fact that I
recognize that the progress that we have made is exceptionally
fragile and we are going to have to stay laser focused on this.
I agree, we cannot wait another ten years. We have already
spent way too much of the American taxpayers' dollars on this
problem, and we are committed to delivering this capability by
Fiscal Year 2028.
Mr. Sessions. It would be appropriate for me to recognize
that both of you are, as I have said in the past, very
professional, very inward looking, and attempting to focus on
these things.
I want to put you in a position, however, that adds a
little bit of fuel to the fire about decisionmaking that you
and the department have to make. And you and I spent a little
bit of time on that, about some of the intricacies, some of the
problems of mirroring up who will take the job, who has got the
background.
I will just say to you that something has got to happen
there. We want the next person, as you have openly said, ``I
will accept the responsibility.'' And I think that is
magnanimous. I am delighted, as opposed to, ``Not my problem.''
But time clicks on.
This Committee will not become frustrated. Mr. Mfume and I
are not frustrated. We want to hear progress that is on both
sides, and that is that the GAO has a responsibility as our arm
to look at this.
I just simply think that there are things that he and I
need to get into to see the incremental progress, that we are
going to need to see that the decisionmaking that was done did
better itself over some small period of time.
And, it could be the things that you have delineated. You
have delineated, look, we have been out and talked to people.
We had a problem with some personnel that were satisfied with
not moving the ball forward. We have made decisions. We are,
least of all, I think concerned about being nice to people but
getting results.
And, I think Mr. Mfume and I do recognize there is always
room for someone else to move or if you have got a problem to
move them somewhere else and for them to take that as a lesson,
a learning opportunity. Perhaps they are better positioned to
do something different. But not to get in the way and not when
you have accepted responsibility. I expect you to be able to
have the bandwidth to pull that off notwithstanding a myriad of
Federal laws, okay, employment laws.
One last point that I would like to ask. Do you have a
handle on your people, meaning the people in this organization,
some 13,000 of them reporting to work by the President's
directive in January 2025?
Mr. Overbaugh. I am aware of no violations of the
President's directive.
Mr. Sessions. So, you believe that you report, which you
are required to do, report to Office of Management and Budget
that your employees are back at work.
Mr. Overbaugh. Yes. As far as I know now, Mr. Chairman,
that is true, and if I am misspeaking, I will definitely----
Mr. Sessions. Okay, you are entitled to revise that. But if
you would please go back and double-check that. In some areas
of the government, we still have a larger number of people and
it is dragging down the organization's ability to effectively
meet its goals too.
Mr. Overbaugh. Gladly. I will take that back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Mfume, do you wish to have further time?
Mr. Mfume. Chairman, yes.
I have got a question, I guess, that always pops up when we
are talking about this agency. And there is an old saying that
goes, ``The hurrier I go, the behinder I get,'' which was the
way people used to characterize frustration. Just spinning
wheels, spinning wheels, spinning wheels.
And thinking about that, Mr. Overbaugh, I wanted to ask
you, are you aware if the Secretary has sent from on high a
directive all the way down to the thousands of people that work
for you, and all that are on your level, that he wants in place
a permanent director of the Defense Counterintelligence and
Security Agency? Talking about Secretary Hegseth.
Mr. Overbaugh. Ranking Member Mfume, I can assure you that
through the leadership of Secretary Hegseth and my boss, Mr.
Hansell, that the selection for a permanent DCSA Director is a
top priority.
Mr. Mfume. Right. But has he sent that word down to the
many, many minions and ranks below him as a directive from his
office as Secretary that you may be aware of?
Mr. Overbaugh. I am not aware of that communication, but I
do know that Mr. Hansell views this as one of his top
priorities and he has been looking for the right person to
ensure that the progress that we have made continues forward.
Mr. Mfume. So, let me ask you another question about my
frustration with the department at times.
Are you aware the department has failed seven or eight
straight audits?
Mr. Overbaugh. I am.
Mr. Mfume. So, that is very troubling to me, and I am sure
it is troubling to the Chairman of this Committee, because we
just do not understand that. Seven or eight straight audits
year after year after year with a budget that shrinks any other
budget that is out there.
And one of the things that I try to do in dissecting that--
and GAO was very helpful--I wanted to know what were the
components that sort of led to that. And what we learned was
that there was not a problem with the Marine Corps. They, for
the last three or four years, have figured it out, gotten it
done. And it was not a knock against the Army, the Air Force,
or anyone else.
We asked, through GAO, what was the single most important
feature that caused the Marine Corps to do what others had not
been able to do, and the answer was that there was an order on
high from the Commandant straight to everybody below him: This
is a priority, get it done. And they got it done.
So, I asked the question about the Secretary, because I
think if there was a directive from on high straight down that
says this is a priority, get it done, it would get done.
Now, you cannot respond to that because you are not the
Secretary, and casually, and not so casually, we have always
said to him that this Committee is wide open to receive him any
time that he would like to come by and talk about that or
anything else. And I just want to reaffirm that that is the
case today.
But in the absence, in my opinion, of a clear directive
from the Secretary that this is not only a priority but, ``I
want to get it done,'' I think we are kind of treading water,
and one month turns into the next and the seasons change and
the years change, and here we are now, aside from eight
straight audits that have been failed, here we are now, 100
percent over budget years beyond where we should be.
So, that is not for your ears to God. It is for the
Secretary's ears to God. I hope that he will understand why
this is so very important and why in this case he is the man,
as they say. He can get this done. There is nothing that the
U.S. Government cannot do. I honestly have always believed
that.
And I do not know to what extent beyond you people have
gone to him and said this is exposure here, this is not good,
eight straight audits, 100 percent over cost, ten years behind
schedule.
So, I want to thank you for your work previous to November
and your work since November, and thank you also for wanting to
own some of the issues that predated you.
But as I said before, that is somebody else's ownership. We
will be looking at you from November on, obviously, and hoping
and wishing that things change, which is why I was particularly
encouraged to hear the GAO say that there have been some
improvements and there are some things on track and for us to
talk about a schedule and trying to get something before this
Committee again in March or April. And I want to wish you well.
My sense is that we will be having this discussion again
when the Chair decides to call us together again, and maybe
incrementally we can designate or pinpoint some sort of
progress.
Ms. Czyz, thank you also. I really want to thank the GAO. I
do not want to call you the police, but you have done a great
job of policing agencies throughout this government. And I am
going to be heartened by your words, as I said a moment ago,
that you have seen some improvements here, and we have got to
make sure that every time we meet we can say that.
And I really hope, Mr. Secretary, if you are listening,
that you would contact the Chair of this Committee and myself.
We would love to talk with you, not to sling arrows but to try
to figure out how do we put our finger in the dike to stop this
amount of money going out and creating a security situation for
the United States and its people and agents all over the globe
that none of us want and none of us want to see come to pass.
So, Mr. Chairman, you have been very generous, as the
gentleman from Tennessee said earlier. He is going to like you
more than he likes me. It is just a matter of time. But thank
you.
Mr. Sessions. I have got a little bit of time on my side,
and I want to thank the gentleman.
If I could say that one of the things that temporarily
disturbed us, is we did not hear--have back a letter that we
sent to the Secretary. I did not see a response.
And Members of Congress that come from Subcommittees like
ours where we attempt to approach things on a bipartisan basis
to keep it level, to keep it professional, it would be
appreciated that when we send a letter to hearing something
back.
And I find it in a way that Mr. Mfume has been gracious
about that. I do not write letters for the Department of War. I
write letters to them. And I think that if there is one thing
that you or the chief of staff, Mr. Hewett's here, would take
back to some bit of people, that is when we get a letter, we
should respond back professionally or at least respond back,
``We do not intend to, too bad, we will wait to find out, it
may take seven more months or ten more months.''
But that letter was sent with good intent. And for us to
maintain a professional standard of business that Mr. Mfume
insists on and I do, too, I think that that open communication
extends also beyond you, sir.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. I want
to thank the time, your staff. I want to thank our staffs. We
have spent a good bit of time on this issue, and as Mr. Mfume
said, we are not going away.
I want to thank everyone for being here today. I want to
move to my--where I have got to state in closing I want to
thank our witnesses. There is a five day--there it is.
So, with that said, without objection, all Members have
five legislative days within which to submit materials and
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be
forwarded to our witnesses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]